nazz
Doubting Thomas
It most certainly is a false claim as science has nothing to say on the existence of God. There is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of a deity.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Do the Inquisition and Modern Science have in Common?
- Thread starter newgodthinker
- Start date
It most certainly is a false claim as science has nothing to say on the existence of God. There is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of a deity.
technomage
Finding my own way
While I tend to agree, not all people do. Some people take the view that if God exists, then he should be necessarily detectable by science, because the existence of God would make observable differences in the universe.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
But I am not talking about what people believe. I am talking about what scientists themselves actually say. I'm not aware of any peer reviewed scientific papers dealing with the existence of God. It's simply not part of the philosophy of science to explore such a question.
technomage
Finding my own way
There is a grave difference between what (for example) Richard Dawkins says, and what he publishes in peer-reviewed papers. I am referring to the former.
Depending of course upon the god and what is claimed about said god.
I agree with technomage. Individual scientists may or may not sincerely believe that science disproved god. There is no objectively wrong stance on that matter.
Now, if they presented it as an universal truth, one that was falsifiable and falsified (as opposed to a personal conclusion that can't necessarily be extrapolated to other people), that would indeed be lying.
But I very much doubt they even attempted to, given how elusive the definition of God's properties and attributes is.
Now, if they presented it as an universal truth, one that was falsifiable and falsified (as opposed to a personal conclusion that can't necessarily be extrapolated to other people), that would indeed be lying.
But I very much doubt they even attempted to, given how elusive the definition of God's properties and attributes is.
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
No more so than a theist who declares that life it self proves gods existence.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Again, I am not talking about what scientists say. I am talking about how some atheists talk about science.
As if they had rock-solid proof that they are in the right on their beliefs, would that be it?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
No, more that science supports their lack of belief in deities. That is what I object to.
And how do you know that it is not true? They don't even need any support for starters, so I guess they may found whatever support they want in any random place if they feel like it.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I think I answered that. Science cannot concern itself with the existence of deities. It's not how science works.
But that is not a proper answer, or at least not a solid one.
Science does not need to work at all to justify atheism, because atheism does not need any justification at all.
Atheism may be justified by nearly anything, or by nothing at all. It matters not whether those justifications "work" or make any sense in the first place, because they are so very accessory.
If someone feels that his atheism is supported by science, then by definition it probably is. One could justify atheism by faith in numerology, by nearly any capricious choice.
technomage
Finding my own way
I would agree with that in regards to "passive" atheism (a person who simply lacks belief in any Gods). I don't think I would agree with that in regards to "active" atheism (a person who positively asserts "No Gods exist").
Why not? A god that does not object to being denied probably does not exist anyway.
technomage
Finding my own way
Yeah, but for some Gods (Thor being a classic example) that, if they existed, their objections could get positively uncomfortable.
Dear tech,
It is actually engineering that gets results. To do that, the engineer must understand the conditions and the failings of the science. Force may equal mass times acceleration in practice, but it is limited to a certain set of circumstances. Results are what comes from experience based on set parameters based on the science which fits within those parameters. Today's science, is tomorrow's embarrassment. Today's string theory, is tomorrow's flat earth theory. The Roman church and its Inquisition office, which has since changed names, has a little power today, but tomorrow, it will be a note in history.
Last edited:
Yeah, but for some Gods (Thor being a classic example) that, if they existed, their objections could get positively uncomfortable.
Do you think Thor would respect me more if I just assumed that he exists without his ever bothering to give me evidence that he does exist?
And perhaps more to the point, would he be worth the trouble if he did?
technomage
Finding my own way
Engineering is nothing more than science applied to practical construction.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
technomage
Finding my own way
Kind of a peripheral issue, Luis.
The main issue here (at least, the main point that I brought up) is that there is a difference between a passive lack of belief and an active negation. A passive lack requires no justification. An active negation is just like any other belief--the believer must find it justified, at least by their own subjective standards of justification.